JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal by appellant-Ghanshyam arises out of the judgment and order dated 28.8.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hindaun, thereby convicting the appellant u/s. 304 Pt. II IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 2. Appellant-Ghanshyam was tried for offence u/s. 302 IPC for causing death of Kumari Anita, aged 4 years by throwing her into a well on the fateful night of 9.3.2000. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has frankly conceeded that he does not what (sic want) to challenge the conviction of the appellant and keeps himself confined only to the question of sentence. Learned counsel argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the facts that appellant was a newly wedded couple and had no enmity or grudge with the complainant, coupled with the fact that appellant had no intention to cause the death of Anita and that the incident occurred all of a sudden, inasmuch as the appellant was not in a fit state of mind, it would be in the interest of justice that he may be sentenced to the period already undergone. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the above argument. Having gone through the evidence on record, I am of the considered view that Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant was right in not challenging the conviction of the appellant u/s. 304 Part II IPC. Undisputedly, the appellant was newly married and his `Gauna' ceremony had taken place hardly 3-4 days prior to the incident. It has come in evidence that Dharam Singh, appellant's younger brother had captured the appellant's wife just after she came to the appellant after her `gauna' and that she was under the clutches of Dharam Singh. In the night of occurrence, there was some altercation in between the appellant and .his brother Dharam Singh as the appellant wanted to get his wife free from illegal confinement by his brother. Thus, appellant was very much perturbed and was not in fit state of mind. In such disturbed fate of mind, the appellant went to complainant-Dhanphool, PW-1 and informed him of the altercation/quarrel between him and his brother. He requested Dhanphool to get the dispute settled. Thus, appellant was very much perturbed and was not in fit state of mind. In such disturbed fate of mind, the appellant went to complainant-Dhanphool, PW-1 and informed him of the altercation/quarrel between him and his brother. He requested Dhanphool to get the dispute settled. PW-1 Dhanphool left the place while leaving his kinds, including deceased-Anita in the company of appellant and went to Dharam Singh so as to get the dispute settled between two brothers. PW-1 Dhanphool himself found the allegation of the appellant correct that Dharam Singh had captured appellant's newly married wife. Thus evidently the appellant, at the time of occurrence, was not in fit state of mind and was very much perturbed, in as much as his wife who had come to him for the first time just 3-4 days prior and was under the clutches of his brother Dharam Singh. 5. There is no direct evidence and the case rests solely on the circumstantial evidence, namely, the last seer ,and the extra judicial confession of the appellant. The learned trial, Court having considered the circumstantial evidence has come to a finding that it 'was the appellant who caused the death of deceased-Anita. However, the appellant had povenimocity with the complainant nor had any motive of cause death of deceased. In my considered view, the learned trial Court, on proper appreciation of evidence, has rightly arrived at a conclusion that appellant had no intention to cause the death of deceased. However, he had the knowledge that the act done by him would likely to cause death of the deceased. In this view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant u/s. 304 Part II deserves to be maintained. 6. The appellant has been in custody since 14.3.2000 and thus he has already undergone major part of the sentence awarded to him i.e. 5 years. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that ends of justice would be met if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 7. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of appellant-Ghanshyam u/s. 304 Part II IPC, he is sentenced to the term already undergone by him. The appellant is in jail and he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal partly allowed. *******